Posted on 10/17/2004 3:32:54 PM PDT by NYer
I understand where you are coming from with what you are saying, but you are missing out on the "X" factor: that JPII knows both from prophecy, and from divine communication that the rise of Islam (in a very violent form), opposed to Western (formerly) Christian civilisation, is not only predicted - but is coming true before our eyes.
He knows that it has the potential to overwhelm and lay waste to Western civilization. And that it makes possible the rise of the Man of Sin.
He is desperately trying to keep us from killing ourselves, and trying to stave off a woldwide holocaust. All of this has very little to do with 911, the Word Trade Center, and the like. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
PLease understand! There is much more at stake then the priede of the USA here.
This is the Church's position:
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841, quoting from Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 16)
That's in the Catechism. That is what I meant when I said that "the Church has spoken on the subject." I'm not talking about the Pope's prudential judgement.
And, as to Zarqawi, do you really perceive him to be some sort of Iraqi, maquis-like figure defending his country against the imperialist aggressor? Need I remind you of the theicide being perpetuated in Sudan and the daily massacres of Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, The Philippines and elsewhere. If you would care to send me your essay on the topic, I'll gladly critique it. No, my friend, Zarqawi and his ilk have already proffered you the option. A mihrab or a coffin. You choose.
You seem to believe that I'm unaware of the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. Furthermore, I don't know where you obtained the idea that I think Zarqawi is some sort of patriot. I'm fully aware that he is a murdering cut-throat and that he represents a violent Islamic sub-sect.
What I do contest is the idea that invading Iraq furthers the cause of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. I consider it totally within the realms of possibility that when all is said and done an Islamic regime will govern Iraq, that it will be far more anti-western and pro-terrorist than Hussein ever was and that the Iraqi Christians will have been either exterminated or exiled.
I'm not minimising the dangers posed by radical Islam. I am questioning the idea the invading Iraq is the correct way to combat it. Am I making myself clear?
But you don't have to substitute these for the Holy Rosary. Do you understand THAT?
And I suppose President Bush isn't the President?
Why not deal with what people actually post and write? Why put words in their mouths? That's what Democrats do.
I'm referring "derisively" to nobody.
YES - you were. And if you're going to be like that, then take responsibility for it, as well.
the Pope in overly critical and derisive terms. As to whether you can do this and still be Catholic,
Or whether you can remain silent and uncomplaining in the face of unholy 'reform' - and call yourself Catholic. True?
My answer is to be loyal to the one whom the Holy Spirit
Alright - if that's the answer, what PRECISELY is the question as you see it? Blind obedience to mistaken judgments by the Pontiff is no virtue, not in God's eyes, not by the teachings of The Church. Our duty is not to churchmen if it becomes a matter of obeying them, or else obeying God and His Church. It's not unknown that heresies have taken on the names of the churchmen who invented them.
By which you mean - except now?
What's your criteria, exactly, for whether insight comes from God, or the enemies of God and His Church? How do you judge that? What are your references? The writings of the Church Fathers? The teachings of the great councils? The writings of the Saints? Scriptures, as understood by The Church? What might it be?
Do you believe it's even possible that the devil might mislead the unwary, in so many ways?
I take it that you see nothing "derisive" or disrespectful in your own words concerning the Holy Father?
Blind obedience to mistaken judgments by the Pontiff is no virtue, not in God's eyes, not by the teachings of The Church. Our duty is not to churchmen if it becomes a matter of obeying them, or else obeying God and His Church. It's not unknown that heresies have taken on the names of the churchmen who invented them.
If the Pope's writings and teachings are subject to your approval, then you are the Pope. It's that simple.
For every Catholic - and every Pope. That's 2000 years of history.
The High Priest at Mass, if not 'new order', isn't the Pope. The Church is protected from error on rare ex cathedra occasions, but not by the Pope. The Catholic standard was not written by the Pope. But he's expected to obey.
You confuse the high office of the papacy with the acts of any Pope. Such judgments may easily be mistaken, and lead souls to ruin. He himself is not the Catholic standard. The Catholic standard is. St. Peter did not say - because I say so.
The devil leaves many traps for us. You might self-righteously pronounce judgment on Catholics for defending God and His Church, thinking you are doing the Lord's work. You might pray about that. You might find when the mind clears that it isn't God's work you're doing. You'll have to answer that for yourself. Because you know my opinion concerning Church teaching, and have rejected it.
It sounds as if you've lost faith that the Holy Spirit is still working through the Church.
I don't see that in anything sevry wrote. He or she is making complete sense.
I guess sevry will enlighten me in due course as to the veracity of my feeling.
Sometimes, it's falls to each of us to question ourselves - truthfully. Is the truth found only in feelings? What of Church teaching?
Sevry sounds like a sedevacantist, to me.
Let him declare himself otherwise.
Pasci, you are willing to throw your lot in with anyone who sides against John Paul II. You're well on your way out the door, as well.
You wish.
You hate the sedes? HATE- HATE -HATE? And you're probably going to vote Kerry? It's a question.
I'm not convinced that the sedes are right. But if you want to rank ALL the Popes in history, from best to worst, and even for a few ties, one could make the case that JP II is - worst Pope ever! Still Pope. But that's the shame of it.
>> "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841, quoting from Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium, 16) <<
Note a key phrase in there...”they profess to hold”. Do you think that slipped in accidentally? If so, then read a whole plethora of prior Magisterial pronouncements.
>> Zarqawi……”represents a violent Islamic sub-sect. “ <<
Agreed (almost). He represents a particularly repugnant subset of a sect that is rooted in the sword and was born of violence – Islam.
>> Am I making myself clear? <<
Well, clearer than your first two posts but clarity is no substitute for either accuracy or truth.
That said, I think we should both draw a line under our exchanges here. We are in danger of dragging the thread even further away from the original post. Feel free to have the last word if you need but, better still, you are welcome to pursue it off-post.
That is the most assinine statement I've ever read on this forum. Ever.
Best wishes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.